If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

everybody here knows my position on tyler hansbrough (nice 10th man of the bench but not near worthy of his pick) and Bird (he's a Celtic and made a hell of a lot more mistakes than ppl give him credit for) but you don't see me posting that to the tune of 100 time a day like you do with Granger, on top if which i have a solid reasoning and foundation for my pet-peeves unlike your granger sucks motto for ife.

Please don't even consider my peeves in the same class as your hatreds.

Thanks for differentiating between your peeves and mines and I agree mines are not in the same class and I don't want them to be in the same class

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

Show me where he said he changed his mind, since his last state of mind known to us was the one where he said he would not trade, and YOU are suggesting he HAS changed his mind, the proof of the pudding is in YOUR sauce not mine

He never said he would not trade, he said that they would have to offer him an all star or similar player to even consider it and that was last year before Danny's disappointing season, nobody knows what Bird is thinking now and that's my point you guys act like you know it and you don't.

By the way by listening to Larry in previous interviews I think is fair to say that Tyler is part of the future and yet you don't stop beating that dead horse, don't judge me if you actually do the same thing

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

He never said he would not trade, he said that they would have to offer him an all star or similar player to even consider it and that was last year before Danny's disappointing season, nobody knows what Bird is thinking now and that's my point you guys act like you know it and you don't.

By the way by listening to Larry in previous interviews I think is fair to say that Tyler is part of the future and yet you don't stop beating that dead horse, don't judge me if you actually do the same thing

So you help my case(s) ; In the first part you admit Bird has no said anywhere that he has changed his mind on trading danny and in the second part you confirm i am right in my opinion on those two thanks!!

So Long And Thanks For All The Fish.

If you've done 6 impossible things today?
Then why not have Breakfast at Milliways!

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

So you help my case(s) ; In the first part you admit Bird has no said anywhere that he has changed his mind on trading danny and in the second part you confirm i am right in my opinion on those two thanks!!

You are welcome .......... and again no reason to get all sensitive about someone's opinion if nobody here really knows what Larry is thinking, that's my hole point, people here should have whatever opinion they want, it's a free blog after all

The Following User Says Thank You to cdash For This Useful Post:

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

It's just being realistic. Obviously anything can happen, but Bird has given a pretty good indication of what he wants to do. He wants to keep most of his players, resign the guys that helped this playoff run and going off of what he's said in the past about Danny, it's highly unlikely he'd trade him.

Should he? Yeah maybe. Doesn't change what he's said though. The chances of Danny going anywhere are slim to none.

I think Bird should go after Deron. He's indicated however he's probably not. I think it's ******** but I'll drop it. It's not going to happen so no use getting excited about it.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I'm just stating what should be obvious, Bird is not going to make some huge gamble trading away our best players just to shake things up. Bird's history and statements show this to be true, this isn't my attempt to play GM. Any deal we could make with our core players would be lateral at best at this point. The team we have already fits together perfectly, you trade your role-players to fit around the core, not the other way around. If you think core players means Pendergraph or Fez, then you certainly are in no position to be playing GM yourself. Obviously core means your top 2-3 players, and in the Pacer's case maybe 3-4.

And yes, the fact this team was top 5 DOES matter. You don't start over from scratch every year. Obviously other teams are trying to improve and the Pacers will as well. But that doesn't happen by taking huge gambles trading away your best players on unproven risks, especially #7 draft picks. We are NOT in rebuilding mode anymore folks, stop pretending we are, or should be.

To me, it seems like a simple factual disagreement about certain deals being lateral "shake ups". Rather than people wanting to shake things up with deals that they consider lateral.

Let me ask you this, what teams have went from near-contenders to contenders by trading away their best players, unless they got a hugely lopsided trade in their favor?

This is a very interesting question in itself, regardless of the related discussion.

Two come to mind.

Miami Shaq trade. A very promising near-contender (4-2 in conference semis). Best player that year (Odom), a good and rising youngster (Caron Butler), a good vet in low 30s (Brian Grant) for a superstar nearing the end of his prime. It would be a little similar to us trading Granger, George and West for someone like Wade, and building around him and Hibbert.

Denver Iverson for Chauncey trade.
I suppose in hindsight it's lopsided since Chauncey did so well and Iverson went downhill very fast. At the time, many considered it an upgrade in identity and fit but a loss in talent.
Iverson wasn't really their best player but he arguably played a bigger role than Granger does here.

But look, the key is that some people (rightly or not, annoyingly or not) consider certain trades lopsided in our favor, and you do not. It's a factual disagreement about specific players, not a conceptual one about how to build a contender in general.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

By the way by listening to Larry in previous interviews I think is fair to say that Tyler is part of the future and yet you don't stop beating that dead horse, don't judge me if you actually do the same thing

I get you now! You don't understand the written word. You are equating Able's posts on Tyler as the same as your posts on Granger. Except nobody is tired of Able beating a dead horse because he rarely does it. I would say for each post Able has indicated a dislike of Tyler, you have made a hundred against Danny. So Able isn't doing the same thing. You're the one that needs to stop.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I get you now! You don't understand the written word. You are equating Able's posts on Tyler as the same as your posts on Granger. Except nobody is tired of Able beating a dead horse because he rarely does it. I would say for each post Able has indicated a dislike of Tyler, you have made a hundred against Danny. So Able isn't doing the same thing. You're the one that needs to stop.

I'm pretty sure a lot of people post that they are tired or ignore Able's posts but I think is possible that you haven't seen the responses because you are too worry about riding that high horse a bit too much and nope I'm not going to stop .

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I wish Larry would do some tweaking and go after Deron ( it is possible, and Larry said he would like to go after guys in FA, if Herb is up for it.).... but realistically the Pacers get Nash (if he is willing to sign here) and keep the major guys together on the team. Nash would help in a lot of ways... I think he would be able to teach collison and hill a lot about passing and spacing (something both of these guys need a lot of help with to become good PG's and not just good players).

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

To me, it seems like a simple factual disagreement about certain deals being lateral "shake ups". Rather than people wanting to shake things up with deals that they consider lateral.

This is a very interesting question in itself, regardless of the related discussion.

Two come to mind.

Miami Shaq trade. A very promising near-contender (4-2 in conference semis). Best player that year (Odom), a good and rising youngster (Caron Butler), a good vet in low 30s (Brian Grant) for a superstar nearing the end of his prime. It would be a little similar to us trading Granger, George and West for someone like Wade, and building around him and Hibbert.

Denver Iverson for Chauncey trade.
I suppose in hindsight it's lopsided since Chauncey did so well and Iverson went downhill very fast. At the time, many considered it an upgrade in identity and fit but a loss in talent.
Iverson wasn't really their best player but he arguably played a bigger role than Granger does here.

But look, the key is that some people (rightly or not, annoyingly or not) consider certain trades lopsided in our favor, and you do not. It's a factual disagreement about specific players, not a conceptual one about how to build a contender in general.

Thanks for posting those two trades, they provide two interesting examples. In Miami's case it worked, in Denver it didn't. I'm not sure that Miami getting Shaq is what put them over the top though, Wade continuing to develop is what put them over the top. In Denver's case, it failed, they never got out of the first round.

A key difference between us and those scenarios is they both had legit superstars, Wade and Melo. They held on to their best player and changed the guys around them. We aren't built that way, we have a team of fringe all-stars. If we want to get someone of that caliber, we'd have to gut the team. Or land a top 3 pick in the draft. Thats going backwards into rebuilding mode. This team can't afford to go into rebuilding mode right now, we just barely got the fans back as it is.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

To be fair, vnzla did not start this thread or come up with this idea. This was an article that mentioned Granger to GS. You guys seem to be jumping on him for past comments. In the conversation about Granger to GS, They have to give up salary. Bogut, Lee, Jefferson, or Biedrins has to come back. That makes it a big no thanx for me.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

To be fair, vnzla did not start this thread or come up with this idea. This was an article that mentioned Granger to GS. You guys seem to be jumping on him for past comments. In the conversation about Granger to GS, They have to give up salary. Bogut, Lee, Jefferson, or Biedrins has to come back. That makes it a big no thanx for me.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

They went to the conf finals after the trade. Great series vs. championship Lakers.

Btw, losers get forgotten, but they were so close to the title that year...
If Nuggets kept leads in final minutes, it could've been over in 4 games. And then it's the very beatable Magic in the Finals.
And Melo's career is totally different --- he gets surrounded by the Dirk aura instead of getting compared to Iverson. Many people probably start placing him above LeBron after the Decision, despite all evidence otherwise, like they do with LeBron vs. Kobe. He likely stays in Denver, and if not, he's viewed very differently regardless.

re the Shaq trade. At the time, it seemed like over the next 5 years, small ball would be a bad idea and you'd have to go either through Duncan or Yao/T-Mac. So it made sense in that regard. And obviously, Shaq had a huge impact and he was probably the real MVP next year.
But in a vacuum, it's a weird trade. Nowadays, I wouldn't want us to do a trade like that. You give away a ton of depth and you break up a very good playoff team of 3 youngsters with All Star potential for a 32 year old superstar. Other than Riley, probably no GM would do that.

I don't know that I agree with that logic in your second paragraph. For one, obviously, the Denver trade was not about getting a superstar, it was about building a roster with pieces that compliment each other better and changing identity. But more generally, I don't agree that there are only two ways to win - either a few superstars or many 'fringe All Stars'.

In the end, I think trades have to be judged on a case by case basis. We have obvious flaws. If we can't fix them via cap, it's fair to ask if they can be fixed via trades and then the cap used to fill in the new gaps.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

To be fair, vnzla did not start this thread or come up with this idea. This was an article that mentioned Granger to GS. You guys seem to be jumping on him for past comments. In the conversation about Granger to GS, They have to give up salary. Bogut, Lee, Jefferson, or Biedrins has to come back. That makes it a big no thanx for me.

Looking from GSW perspective, likely Jefferson or Biedrins. Which brings back the point of how much GSW management sucks. What other team wastes their amnesty while having overpaid guys on long contracts. You just have to keep amnesty as an insurance in that situation.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

To be fair, vnzla did not start this thread or come up with this idea. This was an article that mentioned Granger to GS.

Morever, it was an article just throwing Granger's name out there was ONE of a handful of SFs the Warriors would inquire about trading their #7 pick for. It didn't mention anything about the teams even having a discussion.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I don't envision Danny being traded this offseason, it would have to be a clear upgrade or one heck of a player and right now I don't see that kind of player A.) Becoming available B.) Wanting to play in Indiana.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

Some of these proposed trades are a comical-level of overrating Danny's trade value, almost on par with those Odom and Bynum demands some PDers wanted for a broken-down J.O. several years back.

Danny's a good player, but it's clear by now that he's nothing special. He's a one-dimensional #2/3 scoring option who's nearing 30. I like him personally, and I like that he's finally gotten the chance to win here after years of mediocrity, but if we could land a talented youngster for him, someone that could play with Roy and George for the next decade, I'd pull the trigger.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I understand the fact that we should always be looking to improve our team but there is no chance in hell Larry is actively shopping Danny Granger. The leading scorer on a team that just did a complete turn-around and gave Miami a tough series in the second round of the playoffs. If it weren't for Granger we probably would have been bounced in the first round, and that's only if we would have made the playoffs. That's why people around here get so pissed about constant posts about Danny trade proposals and throwing him under the bus. Paul Pierce was in a similar situation a few years ago before Allen and Garnett were brought in, and no I'm not saying Danny is Paul Pierce, but the situations are close.

"I've got an idea--an idea so smart that my head would explode if I even began to know what I'm talking about." - Peter Griffin

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

#7 and a serviceable backup big for Granger? Do it yesterday. We get younger, improve a huge area of need, and most importantly get an important piece in a quality draft for a one dimensional player who has regressed the past 3 yrs (lol @ the dude saying he doesn't feel like he's regressed. are you going on your heart or something?). Granger is a nice guy, and would make a good 2nd fiddle on a championship contending team. But he's also steadily declining, and his value will only go down as the years go by. He's a nice guy and a solid, loyal player. But if he can really bring all that, you do it. Sticking with the status quo will only get this team an exit in the first round in the years to come when Dwight, Bosh and Rose are healthy. A team like this is probably not going to sign a Deron Williams. But they can draft an elite talent, with a high enough pick.

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I understand the fact that we should always be looking to improve our team but there is no chance in hell Larry is actively shopping Danny Granger. The leading scorer on a team that just did a complete turn-around and gave Miami a tough series in the second round of the playoffs. If it weren't for Granger we probably would have been bounced in the first round, and that's only if we would have made the playoffs. That's why people around here get so pissed about constant posts about Danny trade proposals and throwing him under the bus. Paul Pierce was in a similar situation a few years ago before Allen and Garnett were brought in, and no I'm not saying Danny is Paul Pierce, but the situations are close.

LOL its like people have already forgot what happened to this team with 2 mins to go in the first half of game 5 with no Danny Granger.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to graphic-er For This Useful Post:

Re: Golden State targeting Danny Granger and other small forwards

I have to say, this **** is getting old... very, very old.

I appreciate the both the patience and persistence from guys like able and thunder maker. Like some of us, they have tried. But like many of us, they continue to beat their heads against the wall. I guess I just give up. There is no sense in trying to apply logic, because the other side of the argument defies any sensible form of logic.

On one hand, the rationale behind an argument is disputed by the other party, but when other party uses the same rationale, it is perfectly acceptable to him. Sheesh!

It is never acceptable for anyone to take exception to individuals as opposed to the ideas proposed by those individuals, but I really have to go there.

Vnzla, you are sucking the joy out of my forum experience. I've tried at times putting you on Ignore, but you tend to dominate the forum and many, many threads get re-focused to your objection of . So many folks take the bait and enter an argument with you that your posts are quoted all over the place. There is no getting away from you or your arguments. And, oftentimes, if you don't defy logic, you defy sensibility and compassion.

For the sake of myself and others that have enjoyed this forum and its predecessor for nearly two decades, may I beg of you one simple favor? Please, please, please, try to show a little temperance.